Augmenting the Deliberative Method for Ranking Risks

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) characterized and prioritized the physical cross‐border threats and hazards to the nation stemming from terrorism, market‐driven illicit flows of people and goods (illegal immigration, narcotics, funds, counterfeits, and weaponry), and other nonmarket concerns (movement of diseases, pests, and invasive species). These threats and hazards pose a wide diversity of consequences with very different combinations of magnitudes and likelihoods, making it very challenging to prioritize them. This article presents the approach that was used at DHS to arrive at a consensus regarding the threats and hazards that stand out from the rest based on the overall risk they pose. Due to time constraints for the decision analysis, it was not feasible to apply multiattribute methodologies like multiattribute utility theory or the analytic hierarchy process. Using a holistic approach was considered, such as the deliberative method for ranking risks first published in this journal. However, an ordinal ranking alone does not indicate relative or absolute magnitude differences among the risks. Therefore, the use of the deliberative method for ranking risks is not sufficient for deciding whether there is a material difference between the top‐ranked and bottom‐ranked risks, let alone deciding what the stand‐out risks are. To address this limitation of ordinal rankings, the deliberative method for ranking risks was augmented by adding an additional step to transform the ordinal ranking into a ratio scale ranking. This additional step enabled the selection of stand‐out risks to help prioritize further analysis.     

A Scale of Risk

This article proposes a conceptual framework for ranking the relative gravity of diverse risks. This framework identifies the moral considerations that should inform the evaluation and comparison of diverse risks. A common definition of risk includes two dimensions: the probability of occurrence and the associated consequences of a set of hazardous scenarios. This article first expands this definition to include a third dimension: the source of a risk. The source of a risk refers to the agents involved in the creation or maintenance of a risk and captures a central moral concern about risks. Then, a scale of risk is proposed to categorize risks along a multidimensional ranking, based on a comparative evaluation of the consequences, probability, and source of a given risk. A risk is ranked higher on the scale the larger the consequences, the greater the probability, and the more morally culpable the source. The information from the proposed comparative evaluation of risks can inform the selection of priorities for risk mitigation.     

Foodborne Exposure to Pesticides and Methylmercury in the United Arab Emirates

As part of a comprehensive environmental health strategic planning project initiated by the government of Abu Dhabi, we assessed potential dietary exposure in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to methylmercury (in seafood) and pesticides (in fruits and vegetables) above international guideline levels. We present results for the UAE population by age, gender, and body mass index. Our results show very low daily risks of exposure to pesticides in fruits and vegetables at levels exceeding WHO guidelines even under the conservative assumption that no pesticides are removed during washing and food preparation. Thus, exposure to pesticides on fruits and vegetables does not appear to be a major public health concern in the UAE. The chances of exposure to methylmercury in seafood are much higher; our model estimates a mean 1 in 5 daily risk of exceeding the FAO/WHO provisional tolerable weekly intake. However, great caution should be used in interpreting these results, as we analyzed only the risks and not the substantial benefits of fish consumption. In fact, previous studies have demonstrated that exposure to the n‐3 polyunsaturated fatty acids in fish can increase IQ in developing children, and it can substantially decrease the risk in adults of coronary heart disease and stroke. Further research is warranted to compare the risk of Me‐Hg exposure from fish to the nutritional benefits of fish consumption in the UAE and to determine appropriate methods to communicate risk and benefit information to the UAE population.     

A Deliberative Method for Ranking Risks (II): Evaluation of Validity and Agreement among Risk Managers

A deliberative method for ranking risks was evaluated in a study involving 218 risk managers. Both holistic and multiattribute procedures were used to assess individual and group rankings of health and safety risks facing students at a fictitious middle school. Consistency between the rankings that emerged from these two procedures was reasonably high for individuals and for groups, suggesting that these procedures capture an underlying construct of riskiness. Participants reported high levels of satisfaction with their groups' decision-making processes and the resulting rankings, and these reports were corroborated by regression analyses. Risk rankings were similar across individuals and groups, even though individuals and groups did not always agree on the relative importance of risk attributes. Lower consistency between the risk rankings from the holistic and multiattribute procedures and lower agreement among individuals and groups regarding these rankings were observed for a set of high-variance risks. Nonetheless, the generally high levels of consistency, satisfaction, and agreement suggest that this deliberative method is capable of producing risk rankings that can serve as informative inputs to public risk-management decision making.     

Characterizing Environmental Harm: Developments in an Approach to Strategic Risk Assessment and Risk Management

Environmental policymakers and regulators are often in the position of having to prioritize their actions across a diverse range of environmental pressures to secure environmental protection and improvements. Information on environmental issues to inform this type of strategic analysis can be disparate; it may be too voluminous or even absent. Data on a range of issues are rarely presented in a common format that allows easy analysis and comparison. Nevertheless, judgments are required on the significance of various environmental pressures and on the inherent uncertainties to inform strategic assessments such as “state of the environment” reports. How can decisionmakers go about this type of strategic and comparative risk analysis? In an attempt to provide practical tools for the analysis of environmental risks at a strategic level, the Environment Agency of England and Wales has conducted a program of developmental research on strategic risk assessment since 1996. The tools developed under this program use the concept of “environmental harm” as a common metric, viewed from technical, social, and economic perspectives, to analyze impacts from a range of environmental pressures. Critical to an informed debate on the relative importance of these perspectives is an understanding and analysis of the various characteristics of harm (spatial and temporal extent, reversibility, latency, etc.) and of the social response to actual or potential environmental harm from a range of hazards. Recent developments in our approach, described herein, allow a presentation of the analysis in a structured fashion so as to better inform risk‐management decisions.     

Risk Perceptions Toward Drinking Water Quality Among Private Well Owners in Ireland: The Illusion of Control

In rural areas where no public or group water schemes exist, groundwater is often the only source of drinking water and is extracted by drilling private wells. Typically, private well owners are responsible for the quality and testing of their own drinking water. Previous studies indicate that well owners tend to underestimate the risks of their well water being contaminated, yet little is known about why this is the case. We conducted a qualitative study by interviewing private well owners in Ireland to investigate their beliefs surrounding their water quality, which, in turn, inform their risk perceptions and their willingness to regularly test their water. Based on our findings we designed a theoretical model arguing that perceived control is central in the perceived contamination risks of well water. More specifically, we argue that well owners have the illusion of being in control over their water quality, which implies that people often perceive themselves to be more in control of a situation than they actually are. As a result, they tend to underestimate contamination risks, which subsequently impact negatively on water testing behaviors. Theoretical and practical implications are highlighted.     

How Reassuring are Risk Comparisons to Pollution Standards and Emission Limits?

Pollutant emissions or ambient levels are often justified by reference to a higher benchmark, such as a public health standard or permit limit. However, does this risk comparison persuade the public audiences to whom it is frequently directed that such pollution levels are “acceptable”? A substantial proportion of people living within one mile of New Jersey's industrial facilities, perhaps as much as half, is indeed reassured by a comparison to such benchmarks. Positive attitudes toward discharge limits were linked to speaking English at home; positive attitudes toward drinking water standards were associated with seeing local benefits of industry as outweighing its risks, not speaking English, and relative youth (49 years old or less). Three scenarios involving drinking water contamination varied pre‐ and post‐treatment levels of the pollutant, though all post‐treatment levels were below the standard. In all cases great concern was expressed, with no significant differences across scenarios; net benefits, being white, and non‐English speaking were linked to lower concern. Relative trust seems a better explanation of different attitudes toward benchmark comparisons than varying levels of knowledge, but both hypotheses have drawbacks that merit further testing. These results imply that people with negative views of industry or government, the ones officials might most wish to reassure, will tend to doubt that regulatory benchmarks offer a valid risk comparison.     

Assessment and Application of National Environmental Databases and Mapping Tools at the Local Level to Two Community Case Studies

Communities are concerned over pollution levels and seek methods to systematically identify and prioritize the environmental stressors in their communities. Geographic information system (GIS) maps of environmental information can be useful tools for communities in their assessment of environmental‐pollution‐related risks. Databases and mapping tools that supply community‐level estimates of ambient concentrations of hazardous pollutants, risk, and potential health impacts can provide relevant information for communities to understand, identify, and prioritize potential exposures and risk from multiple sources. An assessment of existing databases and mapping tools was conducted as part of this study to explore the utility of publicly available databases, and three of these databases were selected for use in a community‐level GIS mapping application. Queried data from the U.S. EPA's National‐Scale Air Toxics Assessment, Air Quality System, and National Emissions Inventory were mapped at the appropriate spatial and temporal resolutions for identifying risks of exposure to air pollutants in two communities. The maps combine monitored and model‐simulated pollutant and health risk estimates, along with local survey results, to assist communities with the identification of potential exposure sources and pollution hot spots. Findings from this case study analysis will provide information to advance the development of new tools to assist communities with environmental risk assessments and hazard prioritization.     

The Mutable Nature of Risk and Acceptability: A Hybrid Risk Governance Framework

This article focuses on the fluid nature of risk problems and the challenges it presents to establishing acceptability in risk governance. It introduces an actor‐network theory (ANT) perspective as a way to deal with the mutable nature of risk controversies and the configuration of stakeholders. To translate this into a practicable framework, the article proposes a hybrid risk governance framework that combines ANT with integrative risk governance, deliberative democracy, and responsive regulation. This addresses a number of the limitations in existing risk governance models, including: (1) the lack of more substantive public participation throughout the lifecycle of a project; (2) hijacking of deliberative forums by particular groups; and (3) the treatment of risk problems and their associated stakeholders as immutable entities. The framework constitutes a five‐stage process of co‐selection, co‐design, co‐planning, and co‐regulation to facilitate the co‐production of collective interests and knowledge, build capacities, and strengthen accountability in the process. The aims of this article are twofold: conceptually, it introduces a framework of risk governance that accounts for the mutable nature of risk problems and configuration of stakeholders. In practice, this article offers risk managers and practitioners of risk governance a set of procedures with which to operationalize this conceptual approach to risk and stakeholder engagement.     

A Process for Incorporating Comparative Risk into Environmental Policymaking in Louisiana

The goal of Louisiana's 1990–1991 comparative risk project, also called the Louisiana Environmental Action Plan (LEAP), was to incorporate risk assessment into state environmental planning and policymaking. Scientists, government officials, and citizens were brought together to estimate the relative risk to human health, natural resources, and quality of life posed by 33 selected environmental issues. The issues were then ranked according to their relative estimated risks. It was hoped that this ranking of "comparative risks" would enable state policymakers to target the most important environmental problems and allocate scarce public resources more rationally and efficiently. As a result of the project, the governor issued an Executive Order forming a permanent Public Advisory Committee to continue this type of comparative risk assessment in Louisiana.     

Validation of a Novel Air Toxic Risk Model with Air Monitoring

Three modeling systems were used to estimate human health risks from air pollution: two versions of MNRiskS (for Minnesota Risk Screening), and the USEPA National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA). MNRiskS is a unique cumulative risk modeling system used to assess risks from multiple air toxics, sources, and pathways on a local to a state‐wide scale. In addition, ambient outdoor air monitoring data were available for estimation of risks and comparison with the modeled estimates of air concentrations. Highest air concentrations and estimated risks were generally found in the Minneapolis‐St. Paul metropolitan area and lowest risks in undeveloped rural areas. Emissions from mobile and area (nonpoint) sources created greater estimated risks than emissions from point sources. Highest cancer risks were via ingestion pathway exposures to dioxins and related compounds. Diesel particles, acrolein, and formaldehyde created the highest estimated inhalation health impacts. Model‐estimated air concentrations were generally highest for NATA and lowest for the AERMOD version of MNRiskS. This validation study showed reasonable agreement between available measurements and model predictions, although results varied among pollutants, and predictions were often lower than measurements. The results increased confidence in identifying pollutants, pathways, geographic areas, sources, and receptors of potential concern, and thus provide a basis for informing pollution reduction strategies and focusing efforts on specific pollutants (diesel particles, acrolein, and formaldehyde), geographic areas (urban centers), and source categories (nonpoint sources). The results heighten concerns about risks from food chain exposures to dioxins and PAHs. Risk estimates were sensitive to variations in methodologies for treating emissions, dispersion, deposition, exposure, and toxicity.     

The Perceived Health Risks of Indoor Radon Gas and Overhead Powerlines: A Comparative Multilevel Approach

Radon and overhead powerlines are two radiation risk cases that have raised varying levels of concern among the general public and experts. Despite both involving radiation—a typically feared and unseen health hazard—individuals' perceptions of the two risk cases may invoke rather different factors. We examined individual and geographic-contextual factors influencing public perceptions of the health risks of indoor radon gas and overhead powerlines in a comparative research design, utilizing a postal questionnaire with 1,528 members of the general public (response rate 28%) and multilevel modeling techniques. This study found that beliefs about the two risk cases mainly differed according to the level of "exposure"—defined here in terms of spatial proximity. We argue that there are two alternative explanations for this pattern of findings: that risk perception itself varies directly with proximity, or that risk is more salient to concerned people in the exposed areas. We also found that while people living in high radon areas are more concerned about the risks of indoor radon gas, they find these risks more acceptable and have more trust in authorities. These results might reflect the positive effects of successive radon campaigns in high radon areas, which may have raised awareness and concern, and at the same time may have helped to increase trust by showing that the government takes the health risks of indoor radon gas seriously, suggesting that genuine risk communication initiatives may have positive impacts on trust in risk management institutions.     

A Deliberative Method for Ranking Risks (I): Overview and Test Bed Development

Risk ranking offers a potentially powerful means for gathering public input to help set risk-management priorities. In most rankings conducted to date, the categories and attributes used to describe the risks have varied widely, the materials and procedures have not been designed to facilitate comparisons among risks on all important attributes, and the validity and reproducibility of the resulting rankings have not been assessed. To address these needs, a risk-ranking method was developed in which risk experts define and categorize the risks to be ranked, identify the relevant risk attributes, and characterize the risks in a set of standardized risk summary sheets, which are then used by lay or other groups in structured ranking exercises. To evaluate this method, a test bed involving 22 health and safety risks in a fictitious middle school was created. This article provides an overview of the risk-ranking method and describes the challenges faced in designing the middle school test bed. A companion article in this issue reports on the validity of the ranking procedures and the level of agreement among risk managers regarding ranking of risks and attributes.     

Health Risk,Inequality Indexes,and Environmental Justice

Inequality indexes have long been used to analyze distributions of income. Studies have recently begun to use these tools to evaluate the equity of distributions of environmental harm. In response, issues have been raised regarding the appropriateness of using income-based measures in the context of undesirable outcomes. We begin from first principles, identifying a theoretical preference structure under which income-based tools can be appropriate for ranking distributions of “bads.” While some critiques of existing applications are valid, they are not a justification for rejecting the approach altogether. Instead, we show how standard income-based measures can be adjusted to accommodate bad outcomes. Rather than inequality indexes, we argue that equally distributed equivalents (EDEs) are well-suited for this purpose since they account for levels and dispersion of outcome distributions. The Kolm–Pollak EDE is particularly useful, having the advantage of consistently evaluating both bads and their complementary goods (e.g., mortality risk and survival probability). As an illustration, we show how these tools can inform an environmental justice analysis of a proposed Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule addressing indoor air pollution.     

Vehicle Emission Unit Risk Factors for Transportation Risk Assessments

When the transportation risk posed by shipments of hazardous chemical and radioactive materials is being assessed, it is necessary to evaluate the risks associated with both vehicle emissions and cargo-related risks. Diesel exhaust and fugitive dust emissions from vehicles transporting hazardous shipments lead to increased air pollution, which increases the risk of latent fatalities in the affected population along the transport route. The estimated risk from these vehicle-related sources can often be as large or larger than the estimated risk associated with the material being transported. In this paper, data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Motor Vehicle-Related Air Toxics Study are first used to develop latent cancer fatality estimates per kilometer of travel in rural and urban areas for all diesel truck classes. These unit risk factors are based on studies investigating the carcinogenic nature of diesel exhaust. With the same methodology, the current per-kilometer latent fatality risk factor used in transportation risk assessments for heavy diesel trucks in urban areas is revised and the analysis expanded to provide risk factors for rural areas and all diesel truck classes. These latter fatality estimates may include, but are not limited to, cancer fatalities and are based primarily on the most recent epidemiological data available on mortality rates associated with ambient air PM-10 concentrations.     

A Framework for Assessing Uncertainty Associated with Human Health Risks from MSW Landfill Leachate Contamination

Landfilling is a cost‐effective method, which makes it a widely used practice around the world, especially in developing countries. However, because of the improper management of landfills, high leachate leakage can have adverse impacts on soils, plants, groundwater, aquatic organisms, and, subsequently, human health. A comprehensive survey of the literature finds that the probabilistic quantification of uncertainty based on estimations of the human health risks due to landfill leachate contamination has rarely been reported. Hence, in the present study, the uncertainty about the human health risks from municipal solid waste landfill leachate contamination to children and adults was quantified to investigate its long‐term risks by using a Monte Carlo simulation framework for selected heavy metals. The Turbhe sanitary landfill of Navi Mumbai, India, which was commissioned in the recent past, was selected to understand the fate and transport of heavy metals in leachate. A large residential area is located near the site, which makes the risk assessment problem both crucial and challenging. In this article, an integral approach in the form of a framework has been proposed to quantify the uncertainty that is intrinsic to human health risk estimation. A set of nonparametric cubic splines was fitted to identify the nonlinear seasonal trend in leachate quality parameters. LandSim 2.5, a landfill simulator, was used to simulate the landfill activities for various time slices, and further uncertainty in noncarcinogenic human health risk was estimated using a Monte Carlo simulation followed by univariate and multivariate sensitivity analyses.     

Bounding Analysis of Drinking Water Health Risks from a Spill of Hydraulic Fracturing Flowback Water

A bounding risk assessment is presented that evaluates possible human health risk from a hypothetical scenario involving a 10,000‐gallon release of flowback water from horizontal fracturing of Marcellus Shale. The water is assumed to be spilled on the ground, infiltrates into groundwater that is a source of drinking water, and an adult and child located downgradient drink the groundwater. Key uncertainties in estimating risk are given explicit quantitative treatment using Monte Carlo analysis. Chemicals that contribute significantly to estimated health risks are identified, as are key uncertainties and variables to which risk estimates are sensitive. The results show that hypothetical exposure via drinking water impacted by chemicals in Marcellus Shale flowback water, assumed to be spilled onto the ground surface, results in predicted bounds between 10⁻¹⁰ and 10⁻⁶ (for both adult and child receptors) for excess lifetime cancer risk. Cumulative hazard indices (HI_CUMULATIVE) resulting from these hypothetical exposures have predicted bounds (5th to 95th percentile) between 0.02 and 35 for assumed adult receptors and 0.1 and 146 for assumed child receptors. Predicted health risks are dominated by noncancer endpoints related to ingestion of barium and lithium in impacted groundwater. Hazard indices above unity are largely related to exposure to lithium. Salinity taste thresholds are likely to be exceeded before drinking water exposures result in adverse health effects. The findings provide focus for policy discussions concerning flowback water risk management. They also indicate ways to improve the ability to estimate health risks from drinking water impacted by a flowback water spill (i.e., reducing uncertainty).     

Some Limitations of Qualitative Risk Rating Systems

Qualitative systems for rating animal antimicrobial risks using ordered categorical labels such as “high,”“medium,” and “low” can potentially simplify risk assessment input requirements used to inform risk management decisions. But do they improve decisions? This article compares the results of qualitative and quantitative risk assessment systems and establishes some theoretical limitations on the extent to which they are compatible. In general, qualitative risk rating systems satisfying conditions found in real‐world rating systems and guidance documents and proposed as reasonable make two types of errors: (1) Reversed rankings, i.e., assigning higher qualitative risk ratings to situations that have lower quantitative risks; and (2) Uninformative ratings, e.g., frequently assigning the most severe qualitative risk label (such as “high”) to situations with arbitrarily small quantitative risks and assigning the same ratings to risks that differ by many orders of magnitude. Therefore, despite their appealing consensus‐building properties, flexibility, and appearance of thoughtful process in input requirements, qualitative rating systems as currently proposed often do not provide sufficient information to discriminate accurately between quantitatively small and quantitatively large risks. The value of information (VOI) that they provide for improving risk management decisions can be zero if most risks are small but a few are large, since qualitative ratings may then be unable to confidently distinguish the large risks from the small. These limitations suggest that it is important to continue to develop and apply practical quantitative risk assessment methods, since qualitative ones are often unreliable.